ap

[Albert Langer]

In article <1991Jun05.013632.3198 at convex.com> tchrist at convex.COM 
(Tom Christiansen) writes:

>While we users have contributed somewhat to perl's development, such 
>as our crying out for the <=> operator, by and large the whole thing
>is the brainchild of one man.  Certainly he drew from many sources, but
>that's not the same as having a committee sit down to define a new 
>language: along that path lies madness and ADA. [...]

>You're obviously a small-is-beautiful person, one valuing aesthetics over
>utility.  Fine.  If you don't like it, don't use it.  But a lot of us find
>it the neatest thing since sliced bread, and we get a lot of milage out of
>this funny-looking camel.  It's not some prancing show horse with oh so
>beautiful lines triggering oohs and ahs from the audience.  But I know
>which beastie *I'd* rather have in the desert: the one that gets the job
>done quickest without breaking down due to lack of horsepower, or in this
>case, camelpower.

Haven't you heard that "a camel is a horse designed by a committee".

Sorry, couldn't resist. I have nothing against perl, nor against
Byron Rakitzis designing something better (though there is no need
for him to attack perl in order to do so). Nor do I even have 
anything against ADA, horses or camels and I have only the mildest of
unbigoted prejudices against committees.

But I will get on my high horse to prevent any mixed metaphor from
passing through the eye of a needle!

--
Opinions disclaimed (Authoritative answer from opinion server)
Header reply address wrong. Use cmf851 at csc2.anu.edu.au